|
Post by stevec on Apr 3, 2014 19:32:13 GMT -6
One could also say that if theologians of the past weren't the most biased, influential, and unfortunately the most learned people of their times, we'd have 100x better understanding of our history. That is nonsense. You can prove it to yourself and to us by giving an example that demonstrates that the bias of theologians of the past has somehow led to a misunderstanding or failure to understand our history. Then you would have to demonstrate that we still don't understand our history but we somehow know that we don't understand our history and still labor under many delusions because of those damned theologians. Whew! Good luck and God Hitchens speed. Having pproblems with the quote feature.
|
|
|
Post by stevec on Apr 3, 2014 19:39:20 GMT -6
"That is nonsense. You can prove it to yourself and to us by giving an example that demonstrates that the bias of theologians of the past has somehow led to a misunderstanding or failure to understand our history. Then you would have to demonstrate that we still don't understand our history but we somehow know that we don't understand our history and still labor under many delusions because of those damned theologians. Whew! Good luck and God Hitchens speed." Do you know anything about the Aztecs? You almost didn't.
|
|
|
Post by Historian on Apr 3, 2014 20:02:43 GMT -6
I suppose it's up to you to decide if there is any point in the discussion for you. If there is, I'd love to see you bring evidence to bear on your claim regarding Jews and Christians in Arab lands. It sounds like one of those claims you say that everyone makes concerning things they know nothing about. Feel free to prove me wrong. I don't feel the slightest need to prove you wrong. It is a waste of time until you demonstrate that you can read me correctly. You got everything in my last message wrong. It is hard to see the pay off for me in doing anything more. Who is ignorant or naive enough to consider a book by Vincent Bugliosi anything but amusing for those who enjoy his popularized opinion pieces? "A definitive account" LOL Well, yes, I'm sure his blurb writers are quick to say so. Thanks for giving me a giggle almost equal to the one I got from the suggestion that an atheist who's made a notable contribution to theology can be named. (Hans Küng, maybe? hee hee) You missed the point entirely, you silly creature! Are you this dense in real life? Hee, hee, indeed! Maybe stupidity and atheism are necessarily co-joined. Ever heard of Bart Ehrman, hee, hee? Yes, whether he likes it or not, as a New Testament scholar he is in the theologian's camp, even as a dissenter.
|
|
|
Post by Historian on Apr 3, 2014 20:09:17 GMT -6
"That is nonsense. You can prove it to yourself and to us by giving an example that demonstrates that the bias of theologians of the past has somehow led to a misunderstanding or failure to understand our history. Then you would have to demonstrate that we still don't understand our history but we somehow know that we don't understand our history and still labor under many delusions because of those damned theologians. Whew! Good luck and God Hitchens speed." Do you know anything about the Aztecs? You almost didn't.
So they don't prove your point at all, do they? We do know something about them. The theologians of the past have not caused us to misunderstand them, have they? Or is that one of the delusions those damned theologians have caused and we really don't know anything about the Aztecs? Really, I am getting dizzy trying to figure this nonsense out.
|
|
|
Post by showmedot on Apr 3, 2014 20:30:17 GMT -6
I suppose it's up to you to decide if there is any point in the discussion for you. If there is, I'd love to see you bring evidence to bear on your claim regarding Jews and Christians in Arab lands. It sounds like one of those claims you say that everyone makes concerning things they know nothing about. Feel free to prove me wrong. I don't feel the slightest need to prove you wrong. It is a waste of time until you demonstrate that you can read me correctly. You got everything in my last message wrong. It is hard to see the pay off for me in doing anything more. Who is ignorant or naive enough to consider a book by Vincent Bugliosi anything but amusing for those who enjoy his popularized opinion pieces? "A definitive account" LOL Well, yes, I'm sure his blurb writers are quick to say so. Thanks for giving me a giggle almost equal to the one I got from the suggestion that an atheist who's made a notable contribution to theology can be named. (Hans Küng, maybe? hee hee) You missed the point entirely, you silly creature! Are you this dense in real life? You clearly aren't very perceptive yourself if you think I was commenting in the least about what you had said. For Whatever's sake, I was remarking about the deplorable level of discernment readers have who make bestsellers of Bugliosi's tripe and actually think they've read anything "definitive." Guess mild sarcasm flies well below your radar, Historian.
|
|
|
Post by stevec on Apr 3, 2014 20:31:28 GMT -6
"That is nonsense. You can prove it to yourself and to us by giving an example that demonstrates that the bias of theologians of the past has somehow led to a misunderstanding or failure to understand our history. Then you would have to demonstrate that we still don't understand our history but we somehow know that we don't understand our history and still labor under many delusions because of those damned theologians. Whew! Good luck and God Hitchens speed." Do you know anything about the Aztecs? You almost didn't.
So they don't prove your point at all, do they? We do know something about them. The theologians of the past have not caused us to misunderstand them, have they? Or is that one of the delusions those damned theologians have caused and we really don't know anything about the Aztecs? Really, I am getting dizzy trying to figure this nonsense out. I guess they don't make historians like they use to.
|
|
|
Post by Flitzerbiest on Apr 3, 2014 20:49:02 GMT -6
You missed the point entirely, you silly creature! Are you this dense in real life? Hee, hee, indeed! Maybe stupidity and atheism are necessarily co-joined. Ever heard of Bart Ehrman, hee, hee? Yes, whether he likes it or not, as a New Testament scholar he is in the theologian's camp, even as a dissenter. We've discussed Ehrman on this forum. A bit sensationalistic in his popular titles, but certainly a scholar, at least in my mind. Our resident Christian basically blanket-denies everything Ehrman has to say about the NT on the basis of preferred conclusions. BTW, I think Dot's second X chromosome gives here the right to type "hee hee". What's your excuse. Oh damn, there I go gender stereotyping again.... Incidentally, how many times are you going to troll jump this forum as a guest before you join it? At least vary the material so we can pretend you're someone else.
|
|
|
Post by stevec on Apr 3, 2014 20:55:41 GMT -6
You missed the point entirely, you silly creature! Are you this dense in real life? Hee, hee, indeed! Maybe stupidity and atheism are necessarily co-joined. Ever heard of Bart Ehrman, hee, hee? Yes, whether he likes it or not, as a New Testament scholar he is in the theologian's camp, even as a dissenter. We've discussed Ehrman on this forum. A bit sensationalistic in his popular titles, but certainly a scholar, at least in my mind. Our resident Christian basically blanket-denies everything Ehrman has to say about the NT on the basis of preferred conclusions. BTW, I think Dot's second X chromosome gives here the right to type "hee hee". What's your excuse. Oh damn, there I go gender stereotyping again.... Incidentally, how many times are you going to troll jump this forum as a guest before you join it? At least vary the material so we can pretend you're someone else. Hee hee
|
|
|
Post by Historian on Apr 3, 2014 21:04:47 GMT -6
I am having a little too much fun dropping in and out when the stupidity has become so thick it is irresistible. The thread on women is a case in point. You all have repeated every cliche ever invented and have come nowhere near the truth of the matter. I just don't know if I want to spend the time mopping up that mess given how poorly some of you read. Where is the pay-off?
More to the point, it allows me to spend some quality time gauging how good/interesting/worthwhile the forum is before I join. The stereotypical atheist claims to knowledge are annoying but familiar. But how do you treat your minority? It would be interesting to hear an honest assessment from Ken. I have my own ideas on the subject and they do you no credit.
|
|
|
Post by showmedot on Apr 3, 2014 21:06:20 GMT -6
Not to mention that the bulk of Ehrman's works were produced while he was still nominally a Christian.
And he's no atheist. I read his "coming out" book (somewhat rambling and too much like a badly assembled collection of confused diary pages hastily cobbled together.) He designates himself an agnostic; I agree.
|
|
|
Post by Flitzerbiest on Apr 3, 2014 21:08:17 GMT -6
It would be interesting to hear an honest assessment from Ken. Isn't that the truth!! Of course you'll need to be patient. We've been waiting for that a lot longer than you.
|
|
|
Post by showmedot on Apr 3, 2014 21:15:20 GMT -6
We've discussed Ehrman on this forum. A bit sensationalistic in his popular titles, but certainly a scholar, at least in my mind. Our resident Christian basically blanket-denies everything Ehrman has to say about the NT on the basis of preferred conclusions. BTW, I think Dot's second X chromosome gives here the right to type "hee hee". What's your excuse. Oh damn, there I go gender stereotyping again.... Incidentally, how many times are you going to troll jump this forum as a guest before you join it? At least vary the material so we can pretend you're someone else. Hee hee Retroactively replaces Steve's "Y" with another "X." Welcome, gurlfriend. Now you're genetically qualified to "hee hee." Ain't it gratifying?
|
|
|
Post by showmedot on Apr 3, 2014 21:18:50 GMT -6
It would be interesting to hear an honest assessment from Ken. Isn't that the truth!! Of course you'll need to be patient. We've been waiting for that a lot longer than you. In that aspect, this forum along with its predecessor bears a scary resemblance to Sartre's little horror show of a play, No Exit.
|
|
|
Post by stevec on Apr 3, 2014 21:22:36 GMT -6
I am having a little too much fun dropping in and out when the stupidity has become so thick it is irresistible. The thread on women is a case in point. You all have repeated every cliche ever invented and have come nowhere near the truth of the matter. I just don't know if I want to spend the time mopping up that mess given how poorly some of you read. Where is the pay-off? More to the point, it allows me to spend some quality time gauging how good/interesting/worthwhile the forum is before I join. The stereotypical atheist claims to knowledge are annoying but familiar. But how do you treat your minority? It would be interesting to hear an honest assessment from Ken. I have my own ideas on the subject and they do you no credit. We already know the truth, it's written in every cliche question that doesn't get answered. You're stalling because you don't know shit from Shinola.
|
|
|
Post by stevec on Apr 3, 2014 21:31:39 GMT -6
Retroactively replaces Steve's "Y" with another "X." Welcome, gurlfriend. Now you're genetically qualified to "hee hee." Ain't it gratifying? I'll need a wig, of course, just for starters. Nothing green, saying "hee hee" is gratifying enough.
|
|